devto_update_article

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses a key partial-update semantic ('Omitted fields are left alone') and an important non-behavior ('publish state is never changed'), which goes beyond typical update descriptions. It does not detail error cases or auth requirements, but the most decision-relevant behaviors are covered.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences deliver the core purpose, the partial-update behavior, and the alternative tools with zero filler. The most important scoping constraint (publish state) is placed where it is easy to notice.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 9-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description plus a 100%-covered schema gives an agent enough to call it correctly. It lacks an explicit pointer to devto_create_article for new articles and does not describe the response, but those are minor against the strong parameter schema and clear sibling differentiation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter. The description adds the general behavior that omitted fields are untouched, which meaningfully informs parameter usage, but it does not add per-parameter detail. This matches the baseline for fully documented schemas.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Edit an existing article.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from devto_create_article ('existing'), devto_publish_article, and devto_unpublish_article, making its purpose unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly states when NOT to use this tool: 'the publish state is never changed here' and names the exact alternatives, devto_publish_article and devto_unpublish_article. This gives an agent clear routing criteria without needing to inspect sibling tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.